United States v. Nieves-Melendez, 58 F.4th 569

Nieves was arrested in an apartment with three codefendants; police seized drugs, firearms, ammunition, scales, plastic bags, and paraphernalia from the apartment and from the room where Nieves was found.
Nieves pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana (admitting possession of 87.23 grams) and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; he affirmed the plea and stipulated to the facts at a Rule 11 colloquy.
The PSR converted all drugs seized from the apartment into marijuana and attributed a total of about 39.2 kilograms to Nieves as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3, producing a higher Guidelines range.
Six months after pleading guilty (and after receiving the PSR), Nieves moved to withdraw his plea, stating he had been sleeping in the apartment, lacked knowledge of the drugs and guns, and did not understand he could be held accountable for the larger quantity.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw (crediting the plea allocution and finding no fair and just reason to withdraw) and adopted the PSR drug-quantity for sentencing; Nieves was sentenced to 72 months and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Nieves)	Held
Whether district court abused its discretion in denying post‑plea motion to withdraw guilty plea	The plea was knowing, voluntary, and defendant gave inconsistent, non‑credible statements; delay and lack of serious innocence claim weigh against withdrawal	Nieves argued he was innocent of the apartment‑wide conduct, only sleeping there, and did not understand he could be held liable for a larger drug quantity than the plea specified	Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion — plea colloquy and stipulation undermined innocence claim; six‑month delay and motive (unfavorable PSR) weigh against withdrawal
Whether district court erred in attributing apartment‑wide drug quantity as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3	The PSR attribution was proper: preponderance standard supports grouping where evidence shows same course of conduct; paraphernalia and ammunition linked Nieves to trafficking	Nieves argued record lacked basis to hold him accountable for drugs he did not personally possess or know about (no proof of joint scheme, pooling, or knowledge)	Affirmed: no plain error. Ample, unobjected‑to evidence (ammunition, scales, bags, paraphernalia) supported relevant‑conduct attribution; defendant forfeited some arguments by not pressing them below

United States v. Williams, 48 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022) (standard of appellate review for plea‑withdrawal denials and Rule 11 concerns)
United States v. Flete‑Garcia, 925 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2019) (totality of circumstances test for Rule 11(d)(2)(B) withdrawal)
United States v. Pimentel, 539 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (Rule 11 core concerns: coercion, understanding of charges, consequences)
United States v. Gardner, 5 F.4th 110 (1st Cir. 2021) (factors district courts consider when evaluating fair‑and‑just reason to withdraw a plea)
United States v. Santiago‑Miranda, 654 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2011) (crediting plea allocution under oath; skepticism toward late withdrawal after unfavorable PSR)
United States v. Fernández‑Santos, 856 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2017) (timing of withdrawal motions is highly probative of motive)
United States v. McDonald, 804 F.3d 497 (1st Cir. 2015) (preponderance standard and deference for §1B1.3 relevant‑conduct findings)
United States v. Wood, 924 F.2d 399 (1st Cir. 1991) (appellate deference to district court factual findings on relevant conduct)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (a defendant’s statements under oath carry a strong presumption of truth)